You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Oct 2003

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00055 Oct 2003

 
Oct 2003 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

> Objectively, all the "Vedic" evidence points towards a "nameless" 
Supreme
> Being who can be called by whatever name one choses.

Dear Shri Swamis,
I believe Vedic evidence does not point to a "nameless" supreme 
being, rather it points to a supreme being with innumerous names. 
This is a subtle difference, though, is important enough. I believe 
that the liberty of calling someone with any name probably comes from 
the innumerous names and not from the nameless characteristic. The 
point is, what could be "the" name that could describe the brahman at 
the best? And from whose perspective? There is a small twist in here. 
If it is subjective, then there is no argument. If it is objective, 
human beings "can't" speak for all the other manifestations like 
animals, plants etc. So, neither being subjective, nor being 
objective, by taking an intermediatory position i.e from the 
perspective of "human beings" alone, this question needs to be 
answered - which basically makes sense. And the answer has been 
that "Naraanaam Ayanaha ithi Narayana" i.e the resting abode/final 
destination of all these naras(humans) (ofcourse, there is a lot more 
explanation to this that is in Mumukshuppadi, but I just gave the 
gist of the same). Hence Narayana shabdam best describes the brahmam 
from the "human" perspective, for which, appropriate references from 
Vedas, smruthis, ithihasas have been taken out by our acharyas and 
has been proved. Shankara and others never debated, that Narayana 
shabdam, and hence the Narayana Manifestation, is/isn't the best 
shabda/form to describe the supreme being. Anyways, that is a 
separate thread of discussion altogether by itself that is beyond the 
scope of this subject. Also, we must remember, "we", the followers of 
the Vedic tradition, believe in, that supreme being that has been 
defined by our shastras - I request some learned scholars to throw 
the light on the excellent bramha sutra - "SHAASTRAYONITVAAT". I 
believe that this sutram clearly draws a boundary around the vedic 
believers to indicate them that their belief is only to that extent 
that the shastras expect them to. So, this is not necessarily a 
belief, to be preached to others(while there is no harm in preaching 
the fundamental humantary based living style etc). I am eagerly 
expecting that the great scholars out here would really give us a 
very good understanding of our tradition from this brahma sutra's 
perspective.

I sincerely apologize for my mistakes and my ignorance.

Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jaamaataram Munim

Adiyen,
Ramanuja Dasan

--- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, purohit@xxxx wrote:
> 
> Dear Bhagavatars,
> 
> Objectively, all the "Vedic" evidence points towards a "nameless" 
Supreme
> Being who can be called by whatever name one choses. Hence the 
various sects
> can quite justifiably use the very same Vedas to support their 
claim of
> sectarian monopoly on God.
> 






[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list